Evaluating an interactive acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) workshop delivered to trained therapists working with cancer patients in the United Kingdom: a mixed methods approach.

BACKGROUND: SURECAN (SUrvivors' Rehabilitation Evaluation after CANcer) is a multi-phase study developing and evaluating an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) intervention integrated with exercise and work when highly valued (thus we called the intervention ACT+), for people who have completed treatment for cancer but who have low quality of life. We developed a training programme for therapists working in different psychological services to be delivered over 2-3 days. Our aim was to evaluate the extent to which the training could improve therapists' knowledge and confidence to deliver ACT+ to cancer patients in a trial setting. METHODS: Three interactive workshops were delivered to 29 therapists from three clinical settings in London and in Sheffield. A mixed-methods approach was used. Questionnaires were designed to assess knowledge and confidence in using ACT+ with people who have low quality of life after cancer treatment. They were self-administered immediately prior to and after each workshop. Open text-based questions were used to elicit feedback about the workshops alongside a satisfaction scale. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of therapists (n = 12) to explore their views about the training more deeply, and how it might be optimised. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis showed that knowledge of ACT, as well as confidence in using the ACT+ intervention in this setting increased significantly after training (28.6 and 33.5% increase in the median score respectively). Qualitative analysis indicated that most therapists were satisfied with the content and structure of the programme, valued the rich resources provided and enjoyed the practice-based approach. Potential barriers/facilitators to participation in the trial and to the successful implementation of ACT+ were identified. For some therapists, delivering a manualised intervention, as well as supporting exercise- and work-related goals as non-specialists was seen as challenging. At the same time, therapists valued the opportunity to be involved in research, whilst training in a new therapy model. CONCLUSIONS: Training can effectively improve the knowledge and confidence of therapists from different clinical backgrounds to deliver a modified ACT intervention to cancer patients in a trial setting.

Remote interventions to improve exercise behaviour in sedentary people living with and beyond cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many cancer services to consider a transition to a remote format of delivery that is largely untested. Accordingly, we sought to perform a systematic review of the effects of remotely delivered interventions to improve exercise behaviour in sedentary adults living with and beyond cancer. METHODS: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing a remotely delivered exercise intervention to a usual care comparison in sedentary people over 18 years old with a primary cancer diagnosis. Nine electronic databases were searched from inception to November 2020. RESULTS: The review included three trials, totalling 186 participants. Two of the included trials incorporated prescriptions that meet current aerobic exercise recommendations, one of which also meets the guidelines for resistance exercise. No trials reported an intervention adherence of 75% or more for a set prescription that meets current exercise guidelines. CONCLUSION: There is little evidence suggesting that remote exercise interventions promote exercise behaviours or improve physical function in sedentary adults living with and beyond cancer. The development and evaluation of novel remote exercise interventions is needed to establish their usefulness for clinical practice. Given the social response to the COVID-19 pandemic, further research in this area is urgently needed.

Towards implementing exercise into the prostate cancer care pathway: development of a theory and evidence-based intervention to train community-based exercise professionals to support change in patient exercise behaviour (The STAMINA trial).

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend that men on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer should receive supervised exercise to manage the side-effects of treatment. However, these recommendations are rarely implemented into practice. Community-based exercise professionals (CBEPs) represent an important target group to deliver the recommendations nationally, yet their standard training does not address the core competencies required to work with clinical populations, highlighting a need for further professional training. This paper describes the development of a training package to support CBEPs to deliver NICE recommendations. METHODS: Development of the intervention was guided by the Medical Research Council guidance for complex interventions and the Behaviour Change Wheel. In step one, target behaviours, together with their barriers and facilitators were identified from a literature review and focus groups with CBEPs (n = 22) and men on androgen deprivation therapy (n = 26). Focus group outputs were mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify theoretical constructs for change. In step two, behaviour change techniques and their mode of delivery were selected based on psychological theories and evidence to inform intervention content. In step three, the intervention was refined following delivery and subsequent feedback from intervention recipients and stakeholders. RESULTS: Six modifiable CBEPs target behaviours were identified to support the delivery of the NICE recommendations. Nine domains of the TDF were identified as key determinants of change, including: improving knowledge and skills and changing beliefs about consequences. To target the domains, we included 20 BCTs across 8 training modules and took a blended learning approach to accommodate different learning styles and preferences. Following test delivery to 11 CBEPs and feedback from 28 stakeholders, the training package was refined. CONCLUSION: Established intervention development approaches provided a structured and transparent guide to intervention development. A training package for CBEPs was developed and should increase trust amongst patients and health care professionals when implementing exercise into prostate cancer care. Furthermore, if proven effective, the development and approach taken may provide a blueprint for replication in other clinical populations where exercise has proven efficacy but is insufficiently implemented.

The development of a theory and evidence-based intervention to aid implementation of exercise into the prostate cancer care pathway with a focus on healthcare professional behaviour, the STAMINA trial.

BACKGROUND: Twice-weekly supervised aerobic and resistance exercise for 12 weeks reduces fatigue and improves quality of life in men on Androgen Deprivation Therapy for prostate cancer. Despite the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) proposing this as standard of care, it does not routinely take place in practice. Healthcare professionals are in a prime position to deliver and integrate these recommendations. A change in the behaviour of clinical teams is therefore required. In this paper, we describe the development of a training package for healthcare professionals using theory and evidence to promote delivery of such recommendations as standard care. METHODS: The intervention development process was guided by the Medical Research Council guidance for complex interventions and the Behaviour Change Wheel. Target behaviours were identified from the literature and thirty-five prostate cancer care healthcare professionals (including oncologists, consultant urologists, clinical nurse specialists, physiotherapists, general practitioners and commissioners) were interviewed to understand influences on these behaviours. The Theoretical Domains Framework was used to identify theoretical constructs for change. Behaviour change techniques were selected based on theory and evidence and were translated into intervention content. The intervention was refined with the input of stakeholders including healthcare professionals, patients, and exercise professionals in the form of rehearsal deliveries, focus groups and a workshop. RESULTS: Seven modifiable healthcare professional target behaviours were identified to support the delivery of the NICE recommendations including identifying eligible patients suitable for exercise, recommending exercise, providing information, exercise referral, providing support and interpret and feedback on progress. Ten domains from the Theoretical Domain's Framework were identified as necessary for change, including improving knowledge and skills, addressing beliefs about consequences, and targeting social influences. These were targeted through twenty-two behaviour change techniques delivered in a half-day, interactive training package. Based on initial feedback from stakeholders, the intervention was refined in preparation for evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: We designed an intervention based on theory, evidence, and stakeholder feedback to promote and support the delivery of NICE recommendations. Future work will aim to test this training package in a multi-centre randomised trial. If proven effective, the development and training package will provide a template for replication in other clinical populations, where exercise has proven efficacy but is insufficiently implemented.

Treatment in the STAMPEDE era for castrate resistant prostate cancer in the UK: ongoing challenges and underappreciated clinical problems.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to explore the opinions of healthcare professionals regarding the management of men with advanced prostate cancer with particular emphasis on treatment timing and sequencing; treatment adverse-effects and exercise a supportive therapy. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with a purposively selected group of healthcare professionals involved in prostate cancer care within the NHS, conducted over the phone or face to face. A total of 37 healthcare professionals participated in the interviews including urologists, clinical oncologists, medical oncologists, clinical nurse specialists, general practitioners, physiotherapists, exercise specialists, service managers, clinical commissioners and primary care physicians. RESULTS: The availability of newer treatments for advanced prostate cancer as well as results from the STAMPEDE and CHAARTED trials has resulted in new challenges for patients and HCPs. This includes the impact of an increased workload on oncologists, a potential lack of clinical continuity between urology and oncology and uncertainties regarding optimal selection, timing and sequencing of chemotherapy and second-line treatment. Fitness for treatment in advanced prostate cancer populations remains a significant barrier to accessing therapies for patients with a poor performance status. Among this, muscle wastage can significantly affect performance status and consequentially compromise cancer therapy. Exercise was regarded as a potential therapy to mitigate the adverse-effects of treatment including the prevention or reduction in muscle wastage. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of data guiding clinicians in this post STAMPEDE and CHAARTED era, work is needed to reassess and optimize the prostate cancer care pathway as it evolves. Exercise should be explored as a therapeutic option to mitigate the effects of long term ADT. Further study from a wider cohort of both prostate cancer care specialists and patients will aid in establishing a highly functioning pathway with optimal individualised care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Sustained exercise TrAining for Men wIth prostate caNcer on Androgen deprivation: the STAMINA programme (RP-DG-1213-10,010). REC Reference: 15/SW/0260 IRAS Project ID: 178340 Hospital ID: STH 18391 approved on 24/08/2015.

Interventions for promoting habitual exercise in people living with and beyond cancer.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in the Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9. Despite good evidence for the health benefits of regular exercise for people living with or beyond cancer, understanding how to promote sustainable exercise behaviour change in sedentary cancer survivors, particularly over the long term, is not as well understood. A large majority of people living with or recovering from cancer do not meet current exercise recommendations. Hence, reviewing the evidence on how to promote and sustain exercise behaviour is important for understanding the most effective strategies to ensure benefit in the patient population and identify research gaps. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions designed to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary people living with and beyond cancer and to address the following secondary questions: Which interventions are most effective in improving aerobic fitness and skeletal muscle strength and endurance? Which interventions are most effective in improving exercise behaviour amongst patients with different cancers? Which interventions are most likely to promote long-term (12 months or longer) exercise behaviour? What frequency of contact with exercise professionals and/or healthcare professionals is associated with increased exercise behaviour? What theoretical basis is most often associated with better behavioural outcomes? What behaviour change techniques (BCTs) are most often associated with increased exercise behaviour? What adverse effects are attributed to different exercise interventions? SEARCH METHODS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We updated our 2013 Cochrane systematic review by updating the searches of the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, PsycLIT/PsycINFO, SportDiscus and PEDro up to May 2018. We also searched the grey literature, trial registries, wrote to leading experts in the field and searched reference lists of included studies and other related recent systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an exercise intervention with usual care or 'waiting list' control in sedentary people over the age of 18 with a homogenous primary cancer diagnosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: In the update, review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts to identify studies that might meet the inclusion criteria, or that could not be safely excluded without assessment of the full text (e.g. when no abstract is available). We extracted data from all eligible papers with at least two members of the author team working independently (RT, LS and RG). We coded BCTs according to the CALO-RE taxonomy. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. When possible, and if appropriate, we performed a fixed-effect meta-analysis of study outcomes. If statistical heterogeneity was noted, a meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. For continuous outcomes (e.g. cardiorespiratory fitness), we extracted the final value, the standard deviation (SD) of the outcome of interest and the number of participants assessed at follow-up in each treatment arm, to estimate the standardised mean difference (SMD) between treatment arms. SMD was used, as investigators used heterogeneous methods to assess individual outcomes. If a meta-analysis was not possible or was not appropriate, we narratively synthesised studies. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach with the GRADE profiler. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 studies in this review, involving a total of 1372 participants (an addition of 10 studies, 724 participants from the original review); 227 full texts were screened in the update and 377 full texts were screened in the original review leaving 35 publications from a total of 23 unique studies included in the review. We planned to include all cancers, but only studies involving breast, prostate, colorectal and lung cancer met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen studies incorporated a target level of exercise that could meet current recommendations for moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (i.e.150 minutes per week); or resistance exercise (i.e. strength training exercises at least two days per week).Adherence to exercise interventions, which is crucial for understanding treatment dose, is still reported inconsistently. Eight studies reported intervention adherence of 75% or greater to an exercise prescription that met current guidelines. These studies all included a component of supervision: in our analysis of BCTs we designated these studies as 'Tier 1 trials'. Six studies reported intervention adherence of 75% or greater to an aerobic exercise goal that was less than the current guideline recommendations: in our analysis of BCTs we designated these studies as 'Tier 2 trials.' A hierarchy of BCTs was developed for Tier 1 and Tier 2 trials, with programme goal setting, setting of graded tasks and instruction of how to perform behaviour being amongst the most frequent BCTs. Despite the uncertainty surrounding adherence in some of the included studies, interventions resulted in improvements in aerobic exercise tolerance at eight to 12 weeks (SMD 0.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.70; 604 participants, 10 studies; low-quality evidence) versus usual care. At six months, aerobic exercise tolerance was also improved (SMD 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.72; 591 participants; 7 studies; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the last version of this review, none of the new relevant studies have provided additional information to change the conclusions. We have found some improved understanding of how to encourage previously inactive cancer survivors to achieve international physical activity guidelines. Goal setting, setting of graded tasks and instruction of how to perform behaviour, feature in interventions that meet recommendations targets and report adherence of 75% or more. However, long-term follow-up data are still limited, and the majority of studies are in white women with breast cancer. There are still a considerable number of published studies with numerous and varied issues related to high risk of bias and poor reporting standards. Additionally, the meta-analyses were often graded as consisting of low- to very low-certainty evidence. A very small number of serious adverse effects were reported amongst the studies, providing reassurance exercise is safe for this population.

Supportive interventions to improve physiological and psychological health outcomes among patients undergoing cystectomy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Our understanding of effective perioperative supportive interventions for patients undergoing cystectomy procedures and how these may affect short and long-term health outcomes is limited. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials involving any non-surgical, perioperative interventions designed to support or improve the patient experience for patients undergoing cystectomy procedures were reviewed. Comparison groups included those exposed to usual clinical care or standard procedure. Studies were excluded if they involved surgical procedure only, involved bowel preparation only or involved an alternative therapy such as aromatherapy. Any short and long-term outcomes reflecting the patient experience or related urological health outcomes were considered. RESULTS: Nineteen articles (representing 15 individual studies) were included for review. Heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes across studies meant meta-analyses were not possible. Participants were all patients with bladder cancer and interventions were delivered over different stages of the perioperative period. The overall quality of evidence and reporting was low and outcomes were predominantly measured in the short-term. However, the findings show potential for exercise therapy, pharmaceuticals, ERAS protocols, psychological/educational programmes, chewing gum and nutrition to benefit a broad range of physiological and psychological health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Supportive interventions to date have taken many different forms with a range of potentially meaningful physiological and psychological health outcomes for cystectomy patients. Questions remain as to what magnitude of short-term health improvements would lead to clinically relevant changes in the overall patient experience of surgery and long-term recovery.

Effects of a lifestyle intervention on endothelial function in men on long-term androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of prostate cancer with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with metabolic changes that have been linked to an increase in cardiovascular risk. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial investigated the effects of a 12-week lifestyle intervention that included supervised exercise training and dietary advice on markers of cardiovascular risk in 50 men on long-term ADT recruited to an on-going study investigating the effects of such a lifestyle intervention on quality of life. Participants were randomly allocated to receive the intervention or usual care. Cardiovascular outcomes included endothelial function (flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) of the brachial artery), blood pressure, body composition and serum lipids. Additional outcomes included treadmill walk time and exercise and dietary behaviours. Outcomes were assessed before randomisation (baseline), and 6, 12 and 24 weeks after randomisation. RESULTS: At 12 weeks, the difference in mean relative FMD was 2.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1-4.3, P=0.04) with an effect size of 0.60 (95% CI <0.01-1.18) favouring the intervention group. Improvements in skeletal muscle mass, treadmill walk time and exercise behaviour also occurred in the intervention group over that duration (P<0.05). At 24 weeks, only the difference in treadmill walk time was maintained. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that lifestyle changes can improve endothelial function in men on long-term ADT for prostate cancer. The implications for cardiovascular health need further investigation in larger studies over longer duration.

Using Normalisation Process Theory to explore the contribution of stakeholder workshops to the development and refinement of a complex behavioural intervention: the STAMINA lifestyle intervention.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend that men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) are offered twice weekly supervised aerobic and resistance exercise to address side effects of treatment. However, supervised exercise is not routinely offered in standard clinical practice. The STAMINA programme grant for applied research (PGfAR) has been designed to evaluate whether this recommendation can be delivered within standard NHS care. This paper describes how future implementation of NICE recommendations within the NHS was explored during complex intervention development to enable evaluation of a lifestyle intervention. METHODS: Two stakeholder workshops were conducted to explore factors pertinent to future implementation of the STAMINA Lifestyle intervention (SLI). Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) provided the theoretical framework for discussion and analysis. Stakeholder workshop 1 focussed on intervention coherence and buy-in. Stakeholder workshop 2 explored barriers and facilitators for embedding SLI into the context of the NHS, with delivery partner Nuffield Health, in the future. RESULTS: Workshops were attended by healthcare professionals (n = 16), exercise professionals (n = 17), members of public involved in PPI including patients (n = 12), health psychologists (n = 2), clinical commissioners (n = 4), cancer charities (n = 3), a cancer alliance (n = 1) and health economist (n = 1). Stakeholders agreed that professional training packages should emphasise the uniqueness of the SLI and underpinning theory and evidence (Coherence). To further engagement, the use of STAMINA champions and information about the delivery partner were recommended to enhance confidence and knowledge (Cognitive participation). Furthermore, a simple communication (Collective Action) and progress reporting system (Reflexive Monitoring) was suggested to fit into existing infrastructure within the NHS and community partner. CONCLUSIONS: Application of NPT within two stakeholder workshops enhanced complex intervention development. Context-specific strategies to support implementation of SLI within the context of a trial were proposed, sensed-checked, and considered acceptable. The organisational implications of embedding and sustaining the intervention in preparation for wider NHS roll-out were considered (if proven to be effective) and will be explored in the qualitative component of a process evaluation underpinned by NPT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (ISRCTN: 46385239 ). Registered on July 30, 2020.

Study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of comparing enhanced acceptance and commitment therapy plus (+) added to usual aftercare versus usual aftercare only, in patients living with or beyond cancer: SUrvivors' Rehabilitation Evaluation after CANcer (SURECAN) trial.

BACKGROUND: Two million people in the UK are living with or beyond cancer and a third of them report poor quality of life (QoL) due to problems such as fatigue, fear of cancer recurrence, and concerns about returning to work. We aimed to develop and evaluate an intervention based on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), suited to address the concerns of cancer survivors and in improving their QoL. We also recognise the importance of exercise and vocational activity on QoL and therefore will integrate options for physical activity and return to work/vocational support, thus ACT Plus (+). METHODS: We will conduct a multi-centre, pragmatic, theory driven, randomised controlled trial. We will assess whether ACT+ including usual aftercare (intervention) is more effective and cost-effective than usual aftercare alone (control). The primary outcome is QoL of participants living with or beyond cancer measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General scale (FACT-G) at 52 weeks. We will recruit 344 participants identified from secondary care sites who have completed hospital-based treatment for cancer with curative intent, with low QoL (determined by the FACT-G) and randomise with an allocation ratio of 1:1 to the intervention or control. The intervention (ACT+) will be delivered by NHS Talking Therapies, specialist services, and cancer charities. The intervention consists of up to eight sessions at weekly or fortnightly intervals using different modalities of delivery to suit individual needs, i.e. face-to-face sessions, over the phone or skype. DISCUSSION: To date, there have been no robust trials reporting both clinical and cost-effectiveness of an ACT based intervention for people with low QoL after curative cancer treatment in the UK. We will provide high quality evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding ACT+ to usual aftercare provided by the NHS. If shown to be effective and cost-effective then commissioners, providers and cancer charities will know how to improve QoL in cancer survivors and their families. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN67900293 . Registered on 09 December 2019. All items from the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set for this protocol can be found in Additional file 2 Table S1.

Supported exercise TrAining for Men wIth prostate caNcer on Androgen deprivation therapy (STAMINA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the STAMINA lifestyle intervention compared with optimised usual care, including internal pilot and parallel process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: UK national clinical guidance recommends that men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy are offered twice weekly supervised aerobic and resistance exercise to address iatrogenic harm caused by treatment. Very few NHS trusts have established adequate provision of such services. Furthermore, interventions fail to demonstrate sustained behaviour change. The STAMINA lifestyle intervention offers a system-level change to clinical care delivery addressing barriers to long-term behaviour change and implementation of new prostate cancer care pathways. This trial aims to establish whether STAMINA is clinically and cost-effective in improving cancer-specific quality of life and/or reducing fatigue compared to optimised usual care. The process evaluation aims to inform the interpretation of results and, if the intervention is shown to benefit patients, to inform the implementation of the intervention into the NHS. METHODS: Men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy (n = 697) will be identified from a minimum of 12 UK NHS trusts to participate in a multi-centre, two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial. Consenting men will have a 'safety to exercise' check and be randomly allocated (5:4) to the STAMINA lifestyle intervention (n = 384) or optimised usual care (n = 313). Outcomes will be collected at baseline, 3-, 6- and 12-month post-randomisation. The two primary outcomes are cancer-specific quality of life and fatigue. The parallel process evaluation will follow a mixed-methods approach to explore recruitment and aspects of the intervention including, reach, fidelity, acceptability, and implementation. An economic evaluation will estimate the cost-effectiveness of the STAMINA lifestyle intervention versus optimised usual care and a discrete choice experiment will explore patient preferences. DISCUSSION: The STAMINA lifestyle intervention has the potential to improve quality of life and reduce fatigue in men on androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Embedding supervised exercise into prostate cancer care may also support long-term positive behaviour change and reduce adverse events caused by treatment. Findings will inform future clinical care and could provide a blueprint for the integration of supervised exercise and behavioural support into other cancer and/or clinical services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 46385239, registered on 30/07/2020. Cancer Research UK 17002, retrospectively registered on 24/08/2022.

Assessment of endothelial dysfunction by flow-mediated dilatation in men on long-term androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer.

NEW FINDINGS: What is the central question of this study? Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer has been linked with increased cardiovascular risk, but the mechanisms are unclear. Is there evidence that endothelial dysfunction, as evidenced by reduced flow-mediated dilatation (FMD), is associated with ADT? What is the main finding and its importance? Reduction in FMD with preservation of glyceryl trinitrate-mediated dilatation indicates endothelial dysfunction in men with prostate cancer on long-term ADT compared with well-matched control subjects. Vascular endothelial dysfunction associated with long-term ADT for prostate cancer might explain the observed epidemiological increases in adverse cardiovascular events. Assessment of FMD may be useful in the monitoring of cardiovascular risk in men with prostate cancer on ADT. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men with prostate cancer has been linked to an increased incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality, but the underpinning mechanisms are unclear. Endothelial dysfunction is considered a precursor for cardiovascular disease. Previous studies have reported variably on the association between ADT and endothelial function. This blinded case-control study examined endothelial function, using high-resolution ultrasound to measure flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) and glyceryl trinitrate (GTN)-mediated-dilatation in the brachial artery, in 20 men with prostate cancer (69 ± 7 years old) treated by ADT (median duration 22 months, range 6-133 months) and 20 men without prostate cancer (69 ± 5 years old) matched for age, physical activity, coexistent cardiovascular disease and body mass index. The magnitude of dilatation was calculated traditionally and allometrically scaled, adjusting for baseline diameter. There were no differences between groups for resting vascular measures (means ± SD). Flow-mediated dilatation was lower in men on ADT than in control subjects (3.9 ± 2.1 versus 5.9 ± 3.8% for traditional, P = 0.047; 3.7 ± 2.7 versus 6.0 ± 2.7% for allometrically scaled, P = 0.023). Response to GTN was similar in both groups (12.2 ± 4.2 versus 14.8 ± 5.7% for traditional, P = 0.113; 12.3 ± 4.6 versus 14.4 ± 4.6% for allometrically scaled, P = 0.163). The magnitude of difference in mean FMD between groups was marginally altered to 2.4% (95% confidence interval 0.3-4.5) after adjustment for the difference in body fat mass and concomitant cardiovascular medication, with the difference in FMD remaining significant (P = 0.029). There is evidence of endothelial dysfunction in men with prostate cancer on long-term ADT. Although a causal relationship is unproven, the findings are consistent with observational reports of adverse cardiovascular outcomes associated with long-term ADT for prostate cancer.

Interventions for promoting habitual exercise in people living with and beyond cancer.

BACKGROUND: The beneficial effects of regular exercise for people living with or beyond cancer are becoming apparent. However, how to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary cancer cohorts is not as well understood. A large majority of people living with or recovering from cancer do not meet exercise recommendations. Hence, reviewing the evidence on how to promote and sustain exercise behaviour is important. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions to promote exercise behaviour in sedentary people living with and beyond cancer and to address the following questions: Which interventions are most effective in improving aerobic fitness and skeletal muscle strength and endurance? What adverse effects are attributed to different exercise interventions? Which interventions are most effective in improving exercise behaviour amongst patients with different cancers? Which interventions are most likely to promote long-term (12 months or longer) exercise behaviour? What frequency of contact with exercise professionals is associated with increased exercise behaviour? What theoretical basis is most often associated with increased exercise behaviour? What behaviour change techniques are most often associated with increased exercise behaviour? SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 8, 2012), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, PsycLIT/PsycINFO, SportDiscus and PEDro from inception to August 2012. We also searched the grey literature, wrote to leading experts in the field, wrote to charities and searched reference lists of other recent systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an exercise intervention with a usual care approach in sedentary people over the age of 18 with a homogenous primary cancer diagnosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors working independently (LB and KH) screened all titles and abstracts to identify studies that might meet the inclusion criteria, or that cannot be safely excluded without assessment of the full text (e.g. when no abstract is available). All eligible papers were formally abstracted by at least two members of the review author team working independently (LB and KH) and using the data collection form. When possible, and if appropriate, we performed a fixed-effect meta-analysis of study outcomes. For continuous outcomes (e.g. cardiorespiratory fitness), we extracted the final value, the standard deviation of the outcome of interest and the number of participants assessed at follow-up in each treatment arm, to estimate standardised mean difference (SMD) between treatment arms. SMD was used, as investigators used heterogeneous methods to assess individual outcomes. If a meta-analysis was not possible or was not appropriate, we synthesised studies as a narrative. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen trials were included in this review, involving a total of 648 participants. Only studies involving breast, prostate or colorectal cancer were identified as eligible. Just six trials incorporated a target level of exercise that could meet current recommendations. Only three trials were identified that attempted to objectively validate independent exercise behaviour with accelerometers or heart rate monitoring. Adherence to exercise interventions, which is crucial for understanding treatment dose, is often poorly reported. It is important to note that the fundamental metrics of exercise behaviour (i.e. frequency, intensity and duration, repetitions, sets and intensity of resistance training), although easy to devise and report, are seldom included in published clinical trials.None of the included trials reported that 75% or greater adherence (the stated primary outcome for this review) of the intervention group met current aerobic exercise recommendations at any given follow-up. Just two trials reported six weeks of resistance exercise behaviour that would meet the guideline recommendations. However, three trials reported adherence of 75% or greater to an aerobic exercise goal that was less than the current guideline recommendation of 150 minutes per week. All three incorporated both supervised and independent exercise components as part of the intervention, and none placed restrictions on the control group in terms of exercise behaviour. These three trials shared programme set goals and the following behaviour change techniques: generalisation of a target behaviour; prompting of self-monitoring of behaviour; and prompting of practise. Despite the uncertainty surrounding adherence in many of the included trials, interventions caused improvements in aerobic exercise tolerance at 8 to 12 weeks (from 7 studies, SMD 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.95) in intervention participants compared with controls. At six months, aerobic exercise tolerance was also improved (from 5 studies, SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.94), but it should be noted that four of the five trials used in this analysis had a high risk of bias, hence caution is warranted in interpretation of results. Attrition over the course of these interventions is typically low (median 6%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to promote exercise in cancer survivors who report better levels of adherence share some common behaviour change techniques. These involve setting programme goals, prompting practise and self-monitoring and encouraging participants to attempt to generalise behaviours learned in supervised exercise environments to other, non-supervised contexts. However, expecting most sedentary survivors to achieve current guideline recommendations of at least 150 minutes per week of aerobic exercise is likely to be unrealistic. As with all well-designed exercise programmes in any context, prescriptions should be designed around individual capabilities, and frequency, duration and intensity or sets, repetitions, intensity or resistance training should be generated on this basis.

Pragmatic lifestyle intervention in patients recovering from colon cancer: a randomized controlled pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility of a pragmatic lifestyle intervention in patients who had recently completed surgery and chemotherapy for colon cancer and to obtain preliminary data of its impact on important health outcomes. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, controlled pilot trial. SETTING: University rehabilitation facility. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen (N=18) colon cancer survivors (mean age=69y; range, 52-80y), Dukes stage A to C. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized 6 to 24 months postoperatively to either a 12-week program of combined exercise and dietary advice or standard treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Exercise and dietary behavior, fatigue, health-related quality of life (QOL), aerobic exercise tolerance, functional capacity, muscle strength, and anthropometery were assessed at baseline and immediately after the intervention. RESULTS: Adherences to supervised and independent exercise during the intervention were 90% and 94%, respectively, and there was low attrition (6%). The lifestyle intervention elicited improvements in exercise behavior (P=.068), fatigue (P=.005), aerobic exercise tolerance (P=.010), chair sit-to-stand performance (P=.003), and waist-to-hip ratio (P=.002). A positive change in dietary fiber intake (P=.044) was also observed in the intervention group. No change in QOL was observed (P=.795). CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results suggest that a pragmatic lifestyle intervention implemented 6 to 24 months after primary treatment for colon cancer was feasible. We observed a significant impact on dietary behavior, fatigue, aerobic exercise tolerance, functional capacity, and waist-to-hip ratio. These findings need to be confirmed with a larger-scale definitive randomized controlled trial.

Clinical outcomes and epidemiology of intraocular foreign body injuries in Cork University Hospital, Ireland: an 11-year review.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To describe the epidemiology, outcomes, and prognostic factors of intraocular foreign body (IOFB) injuries at a tertiary ophthalmic referral centre in Cork University Hospital, Ireland. METHODS: A retrospective review of 23 eyes with IOFB that presented to Cork University Hospital (CUH) from January 2009 to December 2019 was performed. The mechanism and characteristics of IOFB injury were all noted. This data was collated and analysed to ascertain the epidemiology of IOFB injury in CUH and to describe the prognostic factors affecting visual outcome following IOFB injury. RESULTS: There was a 100% male prevalence. The mean age was 37.4 years. The majority of IOFBs were metal in nature and were acquired by hammering, often while working and frequently in the absence of personal protective equipment (PPE). The route of entry for the IOFB was via the cornea in 70% of cases. Fifty-two percent of cases were clinically detectable and 43% of cases were only identifiable on CT (computed tomography) imaging. Eighty-seven percent of cases underwent surgery on the same day as presentation. There was no incidence (0%) of endophthalmitis. Seventeen percent of cases developed post-operative retinal detachment (RD). The mean pre-operative VA was 0.79 LogMAR (6/38 Snellen equivalent-SE) compared to a mean VA of 0.58 LogMAR (6/24 SE) following surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides important epidemiological data for IOFB injuries in Ireland. It also adds some useful information to the literature in relation to prognostic factors and lens status post IOFB injury.

Embedding supervised exercise training for men on androgen deprivation therapy into standard prostate cancer care: a feasibility and acceptability study (the STAMINA trial).

Lifestyle interventions involving exercise training offset the adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy in men with prostate cancer. Yet provision of integrated exercise pathways in cancer care is sparse. This study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of an embedded supervised exercise training intervention into standard prostate cancer care in a single-arm, multicentre prospective cohort study. Feasibility included recruitment, retention, adherence, fidelity and safety. Acceptability of behaviourally informed healthcare and exercise professional training was assessed qualitatively. Despite the imposition of lockdown for the COVID-19 pandemic, referral rates into and adherence to, the intervention was high. Of the 45 men eligible for participation, 79% (n = 36) received the intervention and 47% (n = 21) completed the intervention before a government mandated national lockdown was enforced in the United Kingdom. Patients completed a mean of 27 min of aerobic exercise per session (SD = 3.48), at 77% heart rate maximum (92% of target dose), and 3 sets of 10 reps of 3 resistance exercises twice weekly for 12 weeks, without serious adverse event. The intervention was delivered by 26 healthcare professionals and 16 exercise trainers with moderate to high fidelity, and the intervention was deemed highly acceptable to patients. The impact of societal changes due to the pandemic on the delivery of this face-to-face intervention remain uncertain but positive impacts of embedding exercise provision into prostate cancer care warrant long-term investigation.

Study protocol: a randomised controlled trial investigating the effect of exercise training on peripheral blood gene expression in patients with stable angina.

BACKGROUND: Exercise training has been shown to reduce angina and promote collateral vessel development in patients with coronary artery disease. However, the mechanism whereby exercise exerts these beneficial effects is unclear. There has been increasing interest in the use of whole genome peripheral blood gene expression in a wide range of conditions to attempt to identify both novel mechanisms of disease and transcriptional biomarkers. This protocol describes a study in which we will assess the effect of a structured exercise programme on peripheral blood gene expression in patients with stable angina, and correlate this with changes in angina level, anxiety, depression, and exercise capacity. METHODS/DESIGN: Sixty patients with stable angina will be recruited and randomised 1:1 to exercise training or conventional care. Patients randomised to exercise training will attend an exercise physiology laboratory up to three times weekly for supervised aerobic interval training sessions of one hour in total duration. Patients will undergo assessments of angina, anxiety, depression, and peripheral blood gene expression at baseline, after six and twelve weeks of training, and twelve weeks after formal exercise training ceases. DISCUSSION: This study will provide comprehensive data on the effect of exercise training on peripheral blood gene expression in patients with angina. By correlating this with improvement in angina status we will identify candidate peripheral blood transcriptional markers predictive of improvements in angina level in response to exercise training. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01147952.

Clinical and Laboratory Biomarkers for Pseudoexfoliation Syndrome.

In this review, we present an update on biomarkers (both clinical and laboratory) on the basis of recent peer-reviewed publications relating to pseudoexfoliation syndrome and pseudoexfoliation glaucoma.